Amphibian (?) trace on pet wood

[JooJ]

There was a piece of land sticking out between valleys of about 2000+ sq meters. I found there many various fossils. On that ridge sticking out, there was a rocky bed floor split in 2 or more & were cracked as an earthquake would do. Between them, I found this piece along with another not far inside the crack. I had to be creative to pull them. The matrix below is woody and lightweight and can be broken. On top, is a solid rock and very petrified "something" & sticking together as 1 matrix. 

[Fossildude19]

The only possible fossils I see here, are the partial cross sections of some sort of shell in the limestone on the top.

The rest looks geological, to me. 

 

[JooJ]

how convenient that I find the 2 pieces close to each other. first is this and the other (that I posted before that) that all agree it is a frog shape but also geological. so both look like something...by chance. just like that. both sit on the same kind of petrified wood but since it is "rare" to have a fossil like this, then both are not. I should remind people here that before the 1975 war there was a tremendous interest in Lebanese fossils but no one did anything since then. Meanwhile, many fossils appear as they where somewhere else and it's ok. I dont mind that it's geological, what I mind is the lack of "interesting" "should be checked out" "slim chance it is.." but just to look at a low res picture and decide...a bit premature as opinions. 

[Kane]

1 minute ago, JooJ said:

how convenient that I find the 2 pieces close to each other. first is this and the other (that I posted before that) that all agree it is a frog shape but also geological. so both look like something...by chance. just like that. both sit on the same kind of petrified wood but since it is "rare" to have a fossil like this, then both are not. I should remind people here that before the 1975 war there was a tremendous interest in Lebanese fossils but no one did anything since then. Meanwhile, many fossils appear as they where somewhere else and it's ok. I dont mind that it's geological, what I mind is the lack of "interesting" "should be checked out" "slim chance it is.." but just to look at a low res picture and decide...a bit premature as opinions. 

Take care not to make assumptions that can easily be invalidated by a single counterexample. To wit: I responded to your other ID query and did not state it looked like a frog at all. Instead, if you read carefully, you will note I said it did not have the morphology of any amphibian. Your “all agree” statement is logically invalid.

[JooJ]

ok then. If you think it not have a morphology...nothing can be said. At worse it could be geological with a morphology of one. I mean, if you hold it and look at it, you will see the morphology. In all cases thanks for you opinion.

[JooJ]

The tiny tip that I show in close up on the first image is unlike the rest of the rock. It feel like ivory of similar...

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

It is a piece of suggestively weathered rock. Here is an example of a real fossil frog from the Green River Formation in Wyoming.

 

[JooJ]

 this is a type of frog yes. You make it sound that this is the type of fossil frogs across the ages. I mean...I dont have time to show you "other" kind of complete fossils finds. I'll take the no, on anything, but to say that this is what I was talking about... Again, it will be shown to Mcgill paleo people, will let you know what they will say exactly. I am here to learn not to think that all is known. but will not take > this is how a fossil should be or this is how a frog fossilized should be. I am posting tomorrow pictures of the periphery of WHERE  i found them. I guarantee you will be surprised.

[connorp]

9 minutes ago, JooJ said:

but will not take > this is how a fossil should be or this is how a frog fossilized should be.

Well that is how a frog would be fossilized. Amphibians that are fossilized are usually quite flattened, especially ones like frogs which are too lightweight to be preserved in a lifelike 3D position.

[JooJ]

thanks,

"usually" is the right word. But really don't know why you want it be "always" in this case. I believe that it is not a frog, but i don't believe the flattened issue to be 100%. but you are ok with that too by saying "usually"

[JooJ]

Also and very important, the frog in 3d is NOT this post, it is in another post. This one I did not say anything about it except it could an amphibian. 

[Shamalama]

I believe what you have found is some limestone (light grey) that has been eroded into a rounded shape by water underground. Attached to it is some Chert (tan-white piece with fractures).  This is not uncommon in areas with limestone for Chert, or massive fine grained Quartz, to replace layers and fossils.  I have found similar combinations of the two during my fossil hunts so I have some experience recognizing them.

 

Overall the shape of the limestone is suggestive of an animal but there is little detail that could be considered diagnostic for an accurate determination. As you said, the images are low resolution so there is not enough detail. I suggest taking it to your local science museum and ask them to take a look at it in person.

[Fossildude19]

All of the examples of amphibians I have seen have been either compression fossils, or 3 dimensional bones/skeletons. 

I cannot see any features that would make me think this is an amphibian.  

Can you show us any examples of this type of preservation for amphibians? 

Can you outline any features that make you believe this is an amphibian? 

 

I don't think the bottom area is petrified or fossilzed wood of any kind. 

 

Are there unusual types of fossilization? Yes. Are their any like the two items you have posted? Not that I am aware of. 

It is good to have an open mind. The trick is to not be blind sided by your convictions without the evidence to back them up. 

 

You are correct, that it is difficult to ID fossils from pictures alone.

However, having many years of experience with fossils that we have collectively, as a group, we know how fossils are formed, and they don't form like this.

 

We cannot agree with you, so, you should investigate further.

I think we will have to wait for the McGill people to answer you.

 

I would ask you to come back, and let us know what you are told, and the names/degrees of people with whom you speak. 

Most people who do not believe our identifications never come back to let us know what they received as an answer. 

I suspect that it is because they do not receive the confirmation of their items as fossils. 

 

I don't believe anything further can be learned by allowing this topic to continue. 

Topic is locked to further comments.